Spirituality as a State of Being

Abstract

The special difficulty that exists with the notion of spirituality comes from the fact that it initially addresses a mode of existence which is essentially problematic: namely, our own conscious existence. Every attempt to fix conceptually the role of humanity in the order of things re-enforces the growing apprehension that we are dealing with an elusive reality: with something that does not exist in the normal sense in which the things of the world are said to exist. And, insofar as human existence is the place from which being is able to establish itself as appearing being-what today, following Heidegger, we would call a world1-the question of spirituality extends beyond the fact of human existence to being itself. Traditionally, philosophy has engaged this problem in one of two ways. There is first of all the dualist who, starting with Plato, argues for the presence of a different sort of reality: namely, a reality which is autonomous with respect to material reality and has an existence all its own. The elusive nature of spiritual reality can be explained as arising from the fact that we mistakenly take the experience of material reality to be the norm for our dealings with reality. In opposition to the dualist, we have those who argue for the reverse position: namely, reality is reality and there are no two ways about it. According to this view, the reason why we take the experience of material reality to be the norm is because that is in fact the way reality is. It is understandable that spiritual reality should prove to be so elusive since it is nothing more than a chimera. Despite the fundamental differences which separate these two positions, both are of one mind in insisting that the ambiguity that we find in our experience of ourselves, and that we extend to reality at large, calls for corrective action. In its uncorrected state, such an experience cannot possibly reveal anything that has validity concerning reality, since it would be tantamount to saying that there is something with reality. The correct view, we are told, can only be that there is something wrong with our thinking about reality and not with reality itself. And yet . . . . are we to make of those moments in our lives-moments we believe to be fundamental-when we experience the fact that there is indeed something wrong: not with our thinking, but with ourselves? Is this not the same wrenching encounter with reality that is enacted in our greatest dramas? else do Oedipus Rex, King Lear, Six Characters in Search ofan Author, Waiting for Godot, to only begin the list, have to tell us, if not that there is something with reality, beginning with that reality we call ourselves? This reference to the drama is, by no means, a casual one. It is no coincidence that Aristotle and Nietzsche, whose thinking shaped the classical and postmodern mind respectively, should write treatises on theatre. The theatrical stage, from its earliest days in the Dionysian festivals, has sought to create a space from which to release into our public lives that deeper strata of our existence where we find ourselves connected to reality at large. The twin masks, representing tragedy and comedy, which traditionally serve as emblems of the theatre are not only human faces. They are also, in the final analysis, the faces of a reality that has become spiritual. I What does it mean to be human? Why is this question so intellectually disquieting? Despite the fact that there is no shortage of answers, we find ourselves returning to it again and again. The question itself appears to be no less paradoxical than the reality it inquires of ter. Let me try to illustrate this. Suppose we use the metaphor of a mirror and describe human existence as the mirror in which nature is able to behold itself. Now, the fact that it is a conscious mirror means that it will be aware that there exists in the world something it does not reflect: namely, itself. …